Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Events

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Events. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Events|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Events.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Events[edit]

Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Here we are, a month after Azzarello's death and there's no evidence of lasting coverage or information about his significance to merit a merger elsewhere. The most recent coverage, also represented in the article, is of the donation of his kidneys. A redirect to List_of_political_self-immolations#2020s where this is mentioned is probably more than sufficient. The AfD was well attended, but explicitly allowed revisiting it, so bringing it back here. Star Mississippi 18:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil genocide[edit]

Tamil genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created by a rabid sock puppets abuser after admittedly copying content from War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War.[1]

Nobody recognizes any "Tamil Genocide". The creation of this WP:POVFORK is a clear-cut misuse of Wikipedia as per WP:SOAP and WP:RGW.Ratnahastin (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close. The page is currently fully protected (until 3 June) and only uncontroversial edits are allowed, which a deletion nominatin certainly is not. — kashmīrī TALK 03:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edit to put notice on the main page was already requested. Some admin will eventually put it. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, deletion is not a non-controversial edit. Secondly, and more importantly, deletion discussion in principle aims at identifying problems with the given article, and editors usually work to fix them as the discussion develops. Unless it's a case of WP:TNT, editors are unable to address problems when full protection is in place. (Granted, it wasn't possible to work on this particular article anyway because of WP:TAGTEAM). — kashmīrī TALK 07:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmiri: The AfD nomination was already added to the main article hours ago.[2] You should strike your !vote now. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is fully protected until 21:01 on 30 May 2024 UTC, not 3 June. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The claim about copied content by a sock puppet is no longer valid as the article has since been significantly edited and altered by other users and enough reliable sources have been provided to justify its existence. So the claim that "nobody" recognizes Tamil genocide is clearly false and not a conclusion that can be reached by a person who has fully read the entire article or crosschecked the cited sources in the lede itself. It's a work in progress and more improvements can be made, which was what I was trying to do before users started revert warring and got the page protected. May I also remind the admins that there have been two proposals in the past for its merger and rename, both of which were opposed by most users. Furthermore, there is a place in Wikipedia for "genocides" that do not have universal nor official UN recognition, such as Bangladesh genocide, Black genocide in the United States, Guatemalan genocide and East Timor genocide. In any case, complete deletion cannot be justified.---Petextrodon (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If we go through the contribution history of this article, it seems to me that these users User:Oz346, User:Petextrodon, User:Okiloma, User:Beastmastah, User:Omegapapaya, User:Pharaoh_of_the_Wizards are working as a group to keep their point of view in the article. I have come across these same editors in other Sri lanka civil war related Wikipedia articles as well. Also, what I have noticed is that whenever there is a discussion going on related to a Sri lankan civil war topic, they collectively come and cast the vote that favors them so that the majority is always favored. It should be also noted that three of the users I have mentioned here User:Okiloma, User:Beastmastah, User:Omegapapaya have been blocked from editing for reasons such as using multiple accounts. If we look at the profiles who voted in oppose to this rename, they seem not to be neutral editors if we go through their contribution history.Futhermore, Tamil genocide has not been recognized by the UN or any other famous Human Rights Organizations such as Human Rights Watch or Amnesty. There is a need for independent neutral Wikipedia contributors to look into this issue and provide a solution. I believe this article should be deleted or at least renamed to "Tamil Genocide Allegation". I hope my observations will be useful for Admins when coming up with a decision. JohnWiki159 (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a baseless personal attack. Just because many editors have common interests in pages, does not mean they are all working together. In fact, if you look at the edit history on this article, User:Beastmastah used his sock to make edits [3] which I had publicly opposed on his talk page: User talk:Omegapapaya. Also in previous votes, many uninvolved editors also voted for similar conclusions (you are not an uninvolved editor but have a pro-Sri Lanka edit history and coincidentally became active just today after a hiatus). So you should back up your claims with hard evidence. And regarding UN recognition, there was a clear conflict of interest at the UN and it was not politically neutral in its response. Oz346 (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These pages are in watchlist hence editing them ,I have been editing Sri Lankan articles since 2006. The article does have WP:SIGCOV coverage and article with significant coverage cannot be deleted. 58 Editors have edited this page making 726 edits and that is substantial editing by others.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move:The page was created by a sock who also actively and openly canvassed at least on reddit and is affected by heavy sock and meatpuppetry. The charge of Genocide remains allegations and accusations, with no UN investigation establishing Dolus Specialis. Many of the sources used in the article are WP:SYNTH and references acts that are not Genocide and sources themselves make no mention of Genocide. There is also the issue of WP:TAGTEAM that needs to be addressed as well. -UtoD 07:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are several reliable scholarly sources discussing the topic of 'Tamil genocide', so it is notable enough for its own article. Several peer-reviewed sources are indexed by Google Scholar on this topic. The article has already gone through a discussion to merge, and a discussion to rename, and now a discussion to delete (see its talk page). There are several people who do not like the details in this article being seen on wikipedia. But that is not a valid reason to remove.Oz346 (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Military, and Sri Lanka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep firstly it is a procedural close as the article is protected.There are scholarly sources about Tamil Genocide and particurly the Tamil massacre's in 2009 is called Genocide.Further G5 is not applicable as there has been that have been substantial edits by others.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note that the 2009 Tamil massacre has its own dedicated article. There's no term "genocide" there. — kashmīrī TALK 08:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    G5? It's not a speedy deletion! — kashmīrī TALK 08:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JohnWiki159 and also WP:SOAP. Wikipedia cannot be used for pushing an agenda. CharlesWain (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This The Peoples’ Tribunal Sri Lanka made a comprehensive ruling that qualified the events in Sri Lanka as genocide against the Tamil populace commit by the Sri Lankan government in accordance with international law. All major parties in Canada have recognized that a genocide took place on the island.@ HereforOnce777 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reliable scholarly sources discuss Tamil Genocide. It passes WP:GNG. Articles well sourced cannot be deleted. Socking is not relevant as there have been substantial edits by others. 27.4.1.83 (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and JohnWiki159. I came here from ANI report. This article is clearly making fun of the word "genocide" since no such genocide against the Tamils actually took place. Orientls (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal opinions do not matter. We don’t make up articles from thin air, either it has reliable sources backing up or not. If you ask a Turk, Armenian genocide didn’t happen. Well that is not good enough reason, just because you felt it didn’t happen. Prove it Kanatonian (talk) Kanatonian (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move there’s been enough use of the term that it can be acknowledged through an article; however, I’m not convinced that it has enough of a mass recognition as genocide in the academic or legal worlds for Wikipedia to deem it as such, and those who don’t want it called “allegation” seem to universally misunderstand what we mean when we say “allegation.” We’re not saying that the occurrence of the incidents themselves are “allegations” necessarily but the claim that they amount to genocide is, genocide being a specific legal term for which Wikipedia has certain standards to use. SinhalaLion (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe deleting it and adding the sepcific allegatiosn of Genocide back to the War Crimes page. Large sections of the article have nothing to do with the Genocide allegation and is more about seperate accusations like displacement, settler colonialism etc and many sources don't even mention Genocide as an allegation. Article is excessively bloated by WP:SYNTH. -UtoD 12:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the article is very poorly sourced and draws a lot of its content from existing that seem to use the same sources. Advocates of this page [4] claim that there are many academic sources, however they have not assisted in the efforts undertaken to improve the quality [5]. Furthermore, from what I see there seems to be an underlying agenda at play here. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Really bad bias and POV. Littered with AI-generated text everywhere, such as "This act of reconstruction not only restored the physical monument but also served as a reaffirmation of the community's commitment to remembering the past and seeking justice. The rebuilding of the statue in Jaffna stands as a testament to the enduring spirit of the Tamil people and their continued struggle for recognition and reconciliation." Needs to be completely overhauled; blow it up and start all over again, WP:TNT. Florificapis (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Questionable passages like that can easily be removed or rectified without having to nuke the whole page. Oz346 (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What a bad faith nomination, littered with procedural errors and personal attacks. A badly written article is no reason for deletion. A contested subject matter is not a reason for deletion. If enough reliable sources said that a genocide happened in Sri Lanka, then as an encyclopedia content creating community we can create an article. If the article is not written from neutral perspective or it is not balanced or uses peacock words we have enough notifications to improve the article. This is total hogwash, speedy close. Kanatonian (talk)
  • Draft-ify the current article is an embarrassment (partially because, per tradition, the The Wrong Version was protected; Special:Permalink/1225326372 is merely bad). It is argumentative, and has no clear topic-boundaries. Other articles, such as War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War, cover (most of) the topic area better. The one exception is about historiography in particular; the post-war discussions of whether the specific word "genocide" should be used are a coherent topic that isn't discussed elsewhere. This needs to be completely re-worked, and doing so in draft-space will hopefully lower the temperature. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

85th Plenary Session of the Indian National Congress[edit]

85th Plenary Session of the Indian National Congress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N, not a notable event. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 17:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Pune car crash[edit]

2024 Pune car crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTNEWS, no significant coverage outside India and trivial commentary by a few politicians, possibly because it happened during the 2024 Indian general election. Borgenland (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 23. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 07:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As stated in WP:N(E), "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) [...] are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." There's nothing about this event that indicates it has (or will have) enduring significance. Ethmostigmus (talk | contribs) 11:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It will have enduring significance, we are seeing members of the current ruling party lauchpadding this case for the movement of judicial reform. 27.63.231.66 (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which coinciding with the general election, may as well be an electoral stunt that everyone will forget. Borgenland (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Very much a routine automobile accident, you could replace "Pune" with almost any city around the globe and the story would be the same. NOTNEWS Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Automobile accidents are very common, run of the mill incidents, sure, this incident may have gotten a tad bit more attention from politicians and the news, but at the end of the day, its frankly not really news. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has got significant coverage for now. It will take sometime to see if it meets WP:LASTING. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete: And until then, relevant policies stipulate that the incident is not notable, and an article on it therefore cannot be sustained. If this is still in the news two years from now, I expect anyone still interested can recreate it at that time. Ravenswing 15:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RAPID. Not the right time to decide notability of the subject that has already got enough coverage. Srijanx22 (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is incredibly MILL and probably didn't need the usual pointlessly rageful Republic/NDTV overcoverage which seems to be openly turning a simple vehicular death incident into exactly what they want. There won't be lasting coverage and it will likely end with private settlements and other justice currently happening now. Nate • (chatter) 22:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Still getting coverage.[6] ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reiterate a minimal casualty toll, non-notable victims (that the suspect was driving a Porsche is mere WP:TRIVIA) and no significant coverage outside India. Borgenland (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This above comment is posted by the same editor who also nominated this article for deletion.[7] Ratnahastin (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stricken for emphasis. That's right. You need to sign + timestamp all nominations, Borgenland, which already count as your preference to delete (!vote). El_C 07:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Didn’t notice that in the starter. Thanks! Borgenland (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, all good. El_C 07:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTNEWS and above in general. The Kip (contribs) 08:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons others have mentioned, if this is something that will become notable then it's WP:TOOSOON. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To say that an article should be deleted only because it concerns a recent incident is not sensible. Should wait for some weeks before doing AfD in these cases. Shankargb (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not that it's recent so much as it's a completely run of the mill drunk driving crash that killed two people. It quite literally is not notable. The Kip (contribs) 17:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ... which was stated in the OP. What isn't sensible is to base an opinion at AfD based on cherrypicking only one element of the nomination. Ravenswing 17:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Run-of-the-mill car crash of which hundreds of the same scale occur every day. Just because something receives a small burst of news coverage does not mean it is notable. Curbon7 (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Austrian Open[edit]

2024 Austrian Open (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

$5000 tournament at bwf international level which doesn't meet the notability criteria WP:GNG, WP:NSPORTS and WP:NBAD. The only notable ones which get enough coverage in notable websites are World Tour tournaments.

Moreover the tournament winners are already mentioned here in Austrian International page as each of those editions can't be created on their own due to notability issue.zoglophie•talk• 08:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, was unable to find non-primary sources. ✶Quxyz✶ 16:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2007 attack on Emmanuel Mwambulukutu[edit]

2007 attack on Emmanuel Mwambulukutu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of WP:LASTING - unfortunately a lot of violent crime happens in South Africa, not every attack is noteworthy. BrigadierG (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment an attack on an ambassador is more notable than a random attack, but unless there was some lasting impact, I'd probably agree with Nom. 08:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete the diplomat may well be notable to have his own article, but not this event in particular I would say. Uhooep (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bermuda Smash Invitational[edit]

Bermuda Smash Invitational (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cricket tournament which fails WP:GNG, WP:NCRIC, and WP:EVENT. AA (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rohilkhand[edit]

Battle of Rohilkhand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails WP:N and WP: SIGCOV, no mention of "Battle of Rohilkhand" in the sources which are cited poorly through keyword searching and contains original research. I have checked the sources and nowhere I found a thing related to this event, clearly a WP:HOAX article. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 11:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piano Island Festival[edit]

Piano Island Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a non-notable festival with no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. A Google News search yields only a few passing mentions, but nothing that satisfies WP:GNG. GSS 💬 13:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Colombia Mil Mi-17 crash[edit]

2024 Colombia Mil Mi-17 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS. The majority of news sources are primary. There is a failure of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE with coverage ending three weeks ago and WP:SUSTAINED. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a crash with 9 fatalities is not an everyday occurence, it succeeds WP:NOTNEWS due to the number of fatalities and is the second most fatal helicopter crash this year second to the Lumut Mid-air collision this year, it is the single most fatal crash this year also. Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is not an everyday occurence doesn't mean it has to be included. If we were to do this, we would have hundreds of articles on accidents that are likely not notable enough to be included in wikipedia other than the number of deaths.
Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. All news coverage ended three weeks ago. Even searching the term brings up different helicopter accidents not related to this event.
All news sources whether cited or not are all primary sources without much analysis of the event and are all short in length. The event doesn't have much significant coverage with no secondary sources.
If a helicopter with three people on board crashed and it were the second deadliest (or first) helicopter accident of the year, would an article on that accident need to be created? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTNEWS this should be deleted. Frankly 2024 Lumut mid-air collision probably should be deleted as well. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2024 Lumut mid-air collision had significant coverage as i've listed below :
[8]
[9]
[10]
3 Mainstream sources from seperate parts around the world covered it, however thats for a different discussion, here we have :
[11]
[12]
only 2 here but still enough to cover this and pass Notability guidelines here combined with the sources cited in the article. Lolzer3000 (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is just a bing search that brings up absolutely nothing related to this accident. The only news shown are from the 2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash.
The second source given is a primary source that adds nothing new to the accident. As stated before, the article must have clearly sustained continued coverage which the event fails. As tragic as the accident was, the event clearly does not have significant coverage and lacks secondary sources. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the first one, was in a rush to pack up for class didnt see i linked a random bing search this is what i was trying to link : [13] my apoligies! Lolzer3000 (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michaud Affair[edit]

Michaud Affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been problematically tagged for over a decade. Seems almost entirely based on self-published primary sources. Has POV issues, and no clear evidence that this is a notable event beyond a news cycle. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or place to post personal interpretations. ZimZalaBim talk 14:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wars of the Deccan Sultanates[edit]

Wars of the Deccan Sultanates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another article appears to cover a series of conflicts spanning over a century, which have been amalgamated into many 'wars.' The only source Jaques Tony cited for this title and its prolonged duration does not support the timeline mentioned in the lead and infobox (note that timeline in lead and infobox aren't aligned). This discrepancy creates confusion and suggests a lack of notability. Additionally, the article seems to rely heavily on WP:SYNTH and WP:POVFORK, which is concerning. I hope we don't get to see another non notable 'wars' article spanning centuries or even millennia. Based Kashmiri (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused as to why this article has been nominated for deletion. The article adheres to Wikipedia's standards for reliability and notability. The nominator mentioned WP:SYNTH, so they should identify all the self-published sources and unreliable citations in the article that they believe should be removed.Please all those sources here so that we can talk on that easily.
Additionally, the nominator has raised concerns regarding the accuracy of the names and timelines of the wars mentioned in the article.I have already provided a citation for the nomenclature used in the article's headings.Since the article is heavily reliant on multiple sources, it should include references for the commencement and conclusion of the war, forming the timeline of the conflict.Here I have already cited the sources for the timeline too.I can cite the source with quotation to get easily identify the timeline.
Suggestion:-Nominator as well as the reviewers must thoroughly check all the sources.If there is any problem regarding any reference or source or any paragraph requires more Citation,you may assist by adding tags of [citation needed] for further editing.
Please refer the source "History of the Qutb Shahi Dynasty" authored by H.K. Sherwani.-This source have mentioned the Kemilliogolgi (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't adhere to Wikipedia policies and no you haven't cited any source for this fictional timeline of nearly 200 years simply because there's no source defining such a prolonged timeline. Jaques Tony's source is not enough. You have clearly mixed up every war and conflict between Vijaynagar empire and Deccan sultanates without providing enough sources for its notability and timeline. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 10:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify which Wikipedia policies the article is not adhering to. If there are concerns about the timeline, I can provide specific sources with quotations to demonstrate that the article is accurately written, including the correct timeline for the wars. All sources used in the article are non-fiction.
Here i am giving a few sources :
(A)Article mentioned about a war-Cited by
1)Wars of the Deccan Sultanates:[14]pg.XXXIV
2)The end of the Vijayanagar Empire did not, however, mean an end to the wars, for Bijapur and Golconda now began to dispute the division of the spoils.
(B)Doubts regarding the timeline-
1)Tony Jaques mentioned the last battle as battle of talikota 1565,[15]
2)But the war lasted even after 1565- Untill 1673-final conquest[16]pg.33
  • The final conquest:
In 1672, Abul Hasan Qutb Shah, the last of the Golconda Sultans, ascended the throne. The following year saw the resumption of hostilities between Madurai and Thanjavur. Thanjavur was invaded once again in 1673, and was finally defeated, and the Nayak, Vijayaraghava, was killed[17]pg.33
Note:Vassals are also included in war [18]pg.XV
I hope the nominator will recheck the all sources and will mention all the self published sources cited in the article.As he had referred to WP:SYNTH to give an excuse for the deletion of the article.
If any further doubts-feel free to ask.
Regards!!! Kemilliogolgi (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think one source would be enough for the title. No other source other than Jaques Tony calls it "Wars of the Deccan sultanates", that too gives only the timeline of 1520-1565. I still don't get how come you create an article of nearly 200 years war article. And then you cited this source which contradicts other sources and nowhere this source supports your preferred timeline of 1495-1673. You're just cherry picking info from different sources which is what we call WP:SYNTH. Moreover you're quoting a different conflict from the same source which is not even related to the Vijaynagar empire. It's just a synth mess. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 10:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article contains many misinformation and not neutral at all. Recently I removed misleading info which is not even in the source.Theophilusbisio (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Theophilusbisio I have reverted your edits to the last version of Kemilliogolgi. Please don't remove any content while the deletion discussion is ongoing. Regards. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 11:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sambalpur[edit]

Battle of Sambalpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One more article which lacks significant coverage and the sources don't go beyond mentioning some scattered lines that "Visaladeva, the tenth descendant of this line, was killed by a Muslim ruler of Delhi." There's no Battle of Sambalpur ever occurred per source. It's clearly a WP:HOAX article. Based Kashmiri (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Kanchangarh[edit]

Capture of Kanchangarh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't understand why this page is in the mainspace when the sources provide only one line of information about this topic, "After his successful mission of Adhoni, he annexed Kanchan Garh without any bloodshed." The ongoing issue with poorly documented Indian 'Wars,' 'Sieges,' 'Battles,' and 'Captures' articles needs to be thoroughly reviewed. Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Kabbaldurga[edit]

Capture of Kabbaldurga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability and significant coverage. Cited with poor non WP:RS and WP:RAJ sources which give passing mentions of this event, doesn't deserve a standalone article. Based Kashmiri (talk) 05:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Chittorgarh (1544)[edit]

Siege of Chittorgarh (1544) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article lacks general notability, as there are no cited sources specifically mentioning the Siege of Chittorgarh (1544) or providing significant coverage of this conflict. Instead, it focuses more on unrelated events such as the other conquests of Sher Shah and the Battle of Harmoda (1557). While some sources briefly mention Sher Shah's attention towards Mewar in 1544, there is no substantial coverage of a proper siege of Chittorgarh in these sources. Based Kashmiri (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!
Here are a few sources mentioning the SIEGE OF CHITTOR 1544 A.D.
As the nominator mentioned:The sources regarding the title/heading of article will be:-
Quotation:-1544 A.D. by offering his nominal submission to Shershah the Maharana averted a siege of Chittor.[19]pg.169
I hope nominator have examined the article thoroughly and than questioned about its context?
I have attached around 14 sources for the article completely dealing with the context of the article completely
For further assistance I am attaching a few more sources so that nominator can easily get the context.

[20] Pg.181 [21] Pg.A53 [22] Pg-529 [23] Pg.76 [24] This article neither contains any unreliable source nor dealing with any unrelated topics.Battle of Harmoda,As mentioned above is completely related to the topic.The commander Haji khan and Shams khan were left by Sher shah to face the Udai singh that must be mentioned and the aftermath should also being mentioned. Kemilliogolgi (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You only cited this source [25] after the AfD nomination which has again no significant coverage. How can you create an article which has only 2-3 lines of mentions? Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 08:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source cited after the afd nomination clearly identifies the article by its given name, showing that it is not based on original research. Additionally, there are 14 more sources provided in the article that offer a comprehensive description of the topic. These sources thoroughly support each paragraph within the article, indicating that it is not lacking in citations or referencing. It is recommended that a thorough review of all the sources in the article be conducted before determining whether it should be nominated for deletion. It is important to ensure that all sources are properly cited and referenced before reaching a final decision. (tags: citation needed, unreliable sources)
Note:-Before making a decision on whether to nominate the article for deletion, it is imperative that the nominator conducts a thorough review of all the sources to ensure they are accurately cited. It is also recommended to address any citation deficiencies on the article's talk page before proceeding with any deletion nominations. Only after confirming that the sources are properly cited and referenced should a decision be made regarding the article's deletion. (tags: citation needed, unreliable sources) Kemilliogolgi (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an AI generated reply. Anyways, the event is not significantly covered in the sources. This can be seen in The siege section, which starts with: When Sher Shah Suri was within a mere distance of 12 Kos from Chittor, Udai Singh II made the decision to surrender the fort without engaging in a direct confrontation. This is not what we call WP:SIGCOV. There's no significant engagement, so we can't carve out an article which only has 2-3 lines of non-engagement "Siege of Chittor". And I have checked and thoroughly reviewed the sources, out of 14 only 3 deals with this meagre siege and the rest focuses on other unrelated events. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 17:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Channapatna[edit]

Siege of Channapatna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another Indian 'Siege' and 'Battle' article which lacks notability and significant coverage. It contains irrelevant content, forcefully stretching the article. The relevant sources cited in the 'Battle' section provide only passing mentions, such as "In 1759 it was surprised by the Mahratta army under Gopal Hari, but was speedily released by Haidar Ali" and "The Maratha leader attacked Bangalore and seized Chennapatnam, and Haider countered the attack by sending his favorite officer." It's concerning how these articles can be constructed with such minimal coverage, often just two lines. Based Kashmiri (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, India, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. wP:SYNTH page. Snippets used here from sources that do not help with coverage and others fail verification, and one source used in the battle segment is by Benjamin Lewis Rice who falls under unreliable WP:RAJ source as a British in the Mysore civil service during British occupation of India. RangersRus (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 zebra escape[edit]

2024 zebra escape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD. Short-lived event that has, even a few weeks later, had no discernable lasting impact. Per WP:N(E), the depth and duration of non-local coverage is not sufficient to establish notability. SounderBruce 19:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom
PersusjCP (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Quintessential WP:NOTNEWS of a local event with no actual significance. Escapes of exotic animals are not particularly rare, even if their unusualness attracts some public attention. Reywas92Talk 13:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per previously raised points by above editors. Gottagotospace (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Keep: Changing my vote. Randy Kryn and Another Believer convinced me below. Gottagotospace (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:GNG with coverage in the New York Times, The Guardian, and the Seattle coverage which covers a large regional area (not just local), but is it noteworthy? In the United States, yes, as a rarity. Maybe change the title to the name of the zebra who was on the loose for almost a week, Shug (zebra), which is what makes the topic notable (if all the zebras were quickly captured it wouldn't be, but the zebra wandering around for a week captured news coverage as well as the public's interest). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Zebras wandering around is funny and great for meme material, until it's time to move onto the next meme. I don't think that justifies having an article for it, especially because it wasn't widespread coverage. Gottagotospace (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't get much more widespread than BBC + The Guardian + Smithsonian, AP, CNN, etc etc ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the coverage was widespread, so GNG is not a problem. In looking at other zebra articles this one stands out as being about individual zebras (Shug, the main focus of media coverage). Since Wikipedia coverage about individual zebras is low, then this article should be welcomed and lionized (lionized? run!). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha, y'all changed my mind! Gottagotospace (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (disclaimer: page creator), per GNG. Received international coverage, plenty of sources on the talk page to expand the page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Might well have been thrilling and got a lot of short-term news coverage (click bait), but it doesn't rate encyclopedia coverage.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Canonical Installation of Dennis Villarojo[edit]

The Canonical Installation of Dennis Villarojo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. I see nothing here to suggest that this cermony is in any way notable, although I suppose there might be a case for merging to Dennis Villarojo is there is actually aything of any real importance in this article. Which I doubt.TheLongTone (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

commentJust how much is there worth merging?TheLongTone (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Bharat Jodo Yatra[edit]

Timeline of Bharat Jodo Yatra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is of questionable notability and definitely a WP:NOTNEWS. Bharat Jodo Yatra exists, and there's no reason for timeline to exist other than as "dumping content".

Last merge discussion was opposed and ended in No consensus with the only reasoning being it was "written with effort" Soni (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 1175[edit]

AfDs for this article:
United Airlines Flight 1175 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:EVENT and WP:LASTING.

I note the previous AfDs and the contentious debate surrounding this article. It was previously deleted at an AfD in 2018, then restored by a deletion review in 2021. It survived a second AfD on the basis of continuing coverage and publication of new information which (allegedly) demonstrated the significance and lasting impact of this incident. This new information was almost entirely related to:

  • The release of the NTSB report in late 2020; and
  • Engine failures on United Airlines Flight 328 and Japan Airlines 904, involving the same type of aircraft and engine.

Any time that an incident resulted in a news spike, it is likely that the release of the accident report may receive at least some coverage in secondary sources, but more often than not, this just means that the official investigation has concluded. Notability would be inherited from the content of that report, rather than its existence. In this case, it appears the report recommended changing routine inspection intervals for operators of PW4000 engines. This is a fairly predictable outcome that impacts a specific group of operators - more notable would be an unexpected finding that leads to sweeping changes to regulations across the industry as a whole, but even then it would be more appropriate to cover this in Pratt & Whitney PW4000 article. The article itself quotes the NTSB as saying they had not confirmed a link to the other incidents mentioned above that generated the media spike. Of the references cited that have been published from 2020 onwards, there is little to indicate significant WP:LASTING coverage of this incident. Most either provide trivial mentions of United 1175 while discussing other incidents, are WP:SENSATIONAL, or do not demonstrate WP:PERSISTENCE in the form of detailed case studies, rather they are rehashing what was already reported on in 2018. Other additions to the article in a bid to demonstrate notability have been irrelevant or unencyclopedic - including several paragraphs detailing the history Boeing 777 fatal accidents and hull-losses, an individual's filing of a lawsuit for emotional distress or timelines of the crew performing routine procedures such as initiating fuel crossfeeds and lowering the landing gear. I just removed a sentance and reference from 2018 that said United were planning to offer passengers on flight 1175 refunds! Dfadden (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The event meets Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Duration of coverage in that it has received significant coverage in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 even years after it took place on 13 February 2018.

    The event has become notable since it resulted in a new mandate by the Federal Aviation Administration (WP:LASTING) and it has continued to receive sustained coverage years after the event (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE), even if some of those sources are prompted by another event happening or by regional or local sources that have some connection with the event. If the event were non-notable, it would not continue to receive significant coverage years later.

    Sources published from one month to four years after the event (ordered chronologically) that provide significant coverage about United Airlines Flight 1175:

    1. "NTSB's initial probe finds likely cause of engine blowout on United flight to Hawaii". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. 2018-03-07. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
    2. Morales, Manolo (2019-08-23). "United pilot recalls averting airline disaster". KHON-TV. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
    3. O'Connor, John (2020-06-06). "United, others sued for 2018 in-flight incident". Guam Daily Post. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
    4. "NTSB releases final report on cause of engine blowout on United flight to Hawaii". KHON-TV. 2020-06-30. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
    5. Vasile, Zachary F. (2020-07-03). "NTSB: Pratt inspection missed cracked fan blade". Journal Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
    6. Andrew, Scottie (2021-02-22). "Another United Airlines flight experienced a right engine failure in 2018". CNN. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
    7. Mayer, Erick Haw (2021-02-27). "En 2018 otro Boeing 777 de United Airlines sufrió una falla de motor" [In 2018 another United Airlines Boeing 777 suffered an engine failure]. Transponder 1200 (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.

      From a Google Translate of https://www.facebook.com/notes/1674174042602267/: "Founded on April 26, 2011, Transponder 1200 is a journalistic medium specialized in aviation that, for more than eight years, has positioned ourselves as a benchmark in the global aeronautical industry. With correspondents in Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Ecuador, France, Germany and Mexico, we are a medium in constant growth, innovative and improving our publishing house, always managing to be in the taste of our readers, partners and clients. We are affiliated to the Federation of Associations of Mexican Journalists A.C., by APECOMOR."

    8. Tangel, Andrew; Sider, Alison (2021-03-19). "United's Recent Engine Failure Spooked Denver. It's Happened Before". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-03-19. Retrieved 2024-05-19.
    9. Parvaneh, Fred (2022-04-15). "Captain Behnam, Pilot Who Prevented 2018 Plane Crash, Tells All". Kayhan Life. Archived from the original on 2024-05-19. Retrieved 2024-05-19.
    Additional sources that provide fewer words of coverage:
    1. Tangel, Andrew; Sider, Alison (2021-02-25). "Boeing Moved to Replace 777 Engine Covers Before Recent Failures". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-02-25. Retrieved 2021-02-28.

      The article notes, "After the 2018 failure on the United 777, the FAA mandated that fan blades on the type of engine involved undergo special thermal-acoustic image inspections—using sound waves to detect signs of cracks—every 6,500 flights."

    2. Siemaszko, Corky (2021-02-22). "Plane engine that caught fire on United Airlines flight over Denver has troubled history". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.

      The article notes, "But an NTSB investigation of the Feb. 13, 2018, malfunction of a Pratt & Whitney engine on the Honolulu-bound United flight faulted the company for not doing more stringent inspections."

    3. Levin, Alan (2021-02-21). "Engine Failure Spurs Boeing 777 Groundings in U.S. and Japan". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Cunard for pinging participants from the previous nomination - I did leave messages for the previous nominator and article creator on their respective talk pages as well.
WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is only one factor in determining notability per WP:EVENT. The context of the lasting coverage needs to be taken into consideration against all applicable policies and guidelines. It's less about how long the media coverage lasts for and much more about whether that coverage actually establishes the lasting significance of a particular event. Just because reliable sources exist and continue to be published, doesn't mean the subject merits a stand-alone wikipedia article.
There are clear guidelines on what constitutes WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources in the policy on original research which explicitly states: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Wikipedia is not a collection of news reports.
Considering this, the sources provided above are mostly primary, and while they may be reliable and independent, most provide little evidence of notability for this incident. They do not meet the threshold to pass WP:LASTING or WP:EVENT because:
1. Is reliable and factual, but is a primary source per WP:PRIMARYNEWS that does not provide any analysis on the incident - it just reports what was in the NTSB's preliminary report, which is an example of WP:ROUTINE.
2. Per WP:PRIMARYNEWS, this article consists of an interview with the pilot recounting the incident and should be considered a primary, not a secondary source. Primary sources rarely establish notability.
3. An individual passenger filing a lawsuit as a result of distress/minor injury an in-flight incident is not inherently notable and is a WP:ROUTINE occurrence. If this lawsuit were a successful class action that determined the airline/manufacturer was grossly negligent, an argument could be made that the lawsuit established notability. As it is, the article is an example of sensationalism, which WP:EVENT states is a poor basis for encyclopedic merit.
4. Is a primary source per WP:PRIMARYNEWS. There is also no new significant information included in this source. It that just states the final report is due to be released later that week and restates the summary of the preliminary report which is referenced elsewhere - again fails WP:ROUTINE
5. Another routine primary source that reports on the findings of the NTSB final report without conducting any analysis
6. Probably the closest yet to an actual secondary source, as it does discuss the events retrospectively in the context of some analysis, but does not draw any conclusive links between the incidents, just points out that there were similarities. To draw any conclusions that the modes of failure were actually related based on this article would not meet WP:NOR. Thus it does not demonstrate the significance of United 1175 that is required to meet WP:EVENT and WP:LASTING
7. This is a primary source per WP:PRIMARYNEWS. As I am relying on Google translate to read the text, it is difficult for me to critique. However based on the translation appears to be about the 2021 Denver incident with a mention of United Flight 1175 being only recounting the basic facts of the incident and that authorities will investigate determine if the incidents are linked which might indicate a broader issue with PW4000 engines.
8. I do consider this Wall Street Journal a good secondary source. While it does analyse United Flight 1175 in some level of detail, this is in the context of a broader series of uncontained fan blade failures of Pratt and Whitney and CFM International engines. It is likely this article would demonstrate each of the incidents discussed are notable enough to be mentioned in the articles for the respective engine models. However, notability is not inherited. Eg. The idea that that this particular incident qualifies for a stand-alone article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subject (ongoing issues with the engines themselves) is not actually proof of its notability!
9. Like 2, is an interview with the pilot recounting the incident and should be considered a primary, not a secondary source. Despite being published four years after the accident, it also provides no new facts or analysis that would demonstrate lasting significance.
The three other sources that provide less depth also do provide some level of analysis (although 3. is relatively trivial). However once again, that analysis focusses on a series of separate incidents involving failures of PW4000 engines. As above, I would argue that the actually notable subject being analysed here is the mode of failure of the engine, thus it should be discussed in the article on the engine, rather than a standalone article on this incident.
If we are able to cut the article back to just the information supported by sources 7, 8 and the 3 additional brief mentions, I'd support a merge of this content into the Pratt and Whitney PW4000 article, or a redirect to the same target. Dfadden (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I consider all of these sources to contribute to the event meeting Wikipedia:Notability (events). You wrote of source 6 "Probably the closest yet to an actual secondary source, as it does discuss the events retrospectively in the context of some analysis, but does not draw any conclusive links between the incidents" and of source 8 "I do consider this Wall Street Journal a good secondary source. While it does analyse United Flight 1175 in some level of detail, this is in the context of a broader series". Even if all the other sources are disregarded (something I would disagree with), these two sources by themselves are sufficient for United Airlines Flight 1175 to meet Wikipedia:Notability (events). Regarding the WP:NOTINHERITED assertion about source 8, the essay is about Wikipedia editors claiming a subject has inherited notability when that subject has not been covered by reliable sources. This is not the case here since the subject has been amply covered by reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Cunard (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1175 (2nd nomination) participants: SportingFlyer (talk · contribs), Pontificalibus (talk · contribs), Dhaluza (talk · contribs), StonyBrook (talk · contribs), SunDawn (talk · contribs), Sandstein (talk · contribs), Ambrosiawater (talk · contribs), Oakshade (talk · contribs), Scope creep (talk · contribs), SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), Tigerdude9 (talk · contribs), and Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I was pinged by Cunard. The article has reliable sources to meaningful content, dating three years after the event. WP:EVENT and WP:LASTING are passed by ongoing coverage of three years. Ongoing coverage cannot be expected to mean endlessly never ending coverage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection to User:Dfadden‘s merge ideas, if properly done, per WP:Editing policy, but mergers, especially complex mergers, should not be done through AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a bit of an WP:IAR delete because of the sources, but this was basically a completely run-of-the-mill aviation event which just happened to be well covered. I expect this to be kept given our sourcing rules, but we generally do not keep articles on flight disasters where no one was hurt and nothing important happened as a result unless they were extremely unusual or well covered (the BA flight flying into ash near Indonesia, for instance). Just because we can source an article does not mean we have to have an article on the topic. I do expect this to be kept, and I almost sat this one out as a result, but common sense dictates this really wasn't that important of an aviation event. SportingFlyer T·C 17:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “ run-of-the-mill aviation event which just happened to be well covered” is a self contradiction, if you accept that Wikipedia covers things that others cover, in reliable sources, where “covers” implies secondary source content, not mere repetition. Run-of-the-mill is like churnalism which is characterised by repetition. The three years ongoing sources are not churnalism. This is no standout article, but it is good enough, and could be a good example of the comprehensiveness of Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The link you have provided to secondary source is a general article. Wikipedia has a policy on how WP:SECONDARY sources are interpreted and used to establish notability. The majority of news reports about contemporary events are actually considered primary sources unless they contain detailed analysis or are written retrospectively and look at the impacts of an event over time. This is covered in the policy WP:PRIMARYNEWS. By the standard of these policies (and arguments in AfDs should be supported by actual policy), it is nowhere near as clear cut simple as saying its covered in reliable news outlets, therefore it meets GNG. Things like interviews with the pilot are most definitely NOT secondary sources in this context. Also, you have misrepresented what churnalism means in regards to WP:MILL - the first line of that policy states "Something that is run-of-the-mill is a common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from the rest." Churnalism on the other hand is "a pejorative term for a form of journalism in which instead of original reported news, pre-packaged material such as press releases or stories provided by news agencies are used to create articles in newspapers and other news media." Eg. repetition of press releases or mirrors of the same work under different mastheads. These are NOT the same thing. Not even close. Churnalism is not even mentioned in the policy WP:MILL (although it is mentioned in WP:RS). Dfadden (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You’re not telling me anything I don’t know. The article won’t be deleted because it meets the Wikipedia-notability threshold. You need to decide whether you want to argue for deletion, or for a merger, because they are not compatible. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because sources cover an event or a topic does not mean we need to have an article on the topic. The Aviation Herald lists this as an incident as opposed to an accident or crash, which are generally notable, and the lasting coverage is basically just a mention that it happened. There's also bias involved here - because two of these incidents occurred on American planes, there's more coverage available to Wikipedia than for the exact same Japanese incident, which does not have an article. As I said, I do expect this to be kept because people will see coverage and stop there, but this event really does not fit the mold of the types of aviation accidents which we are likely to have articles on, and as such I am making a common sense delete vote. SportingFlyer T·C 19:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It has enough sources, over enough time, to pass the GNG. Passing the GNG does not mean it needs its own article, agreed. It could be merged somewhere, as Dfadden suggests. Merging is not achieved by deleting at AfD. AfD is the wrong venue for merging, especially complicated merges. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem with a merge, and AfDs can result in the merge of a page as you well know. SportingFlyer T·C 04:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the argument and WP:LASTING coverage provided by Cunard. If it doesn't have lasting impact, why would CNN give the incident in-depth coverage over three years later?[26] and why would the FAA mandate new inspection processes based on the incident? Oakshade (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing particularly notable about the FAA issuing an airworthiness directive to require changes to inspection intervals as a result of a mechanical failure! That's just an example of an organisation that is responsible for risk mitigation doing its job to provide additional layers of safety. Cracks were missed at the previous routine inspection - so a simple way of addressing that is to require engineers to look more often. Revision of inspection intervals happens nearly every time there is an unexpected mechanical failure of an aircraft component that is otherwise maintained in line with the manufacturers guidance. If this had been an Emergency Airworthiness Directive, then yeah, it would be notable like Qantas Flight 72, another non-fatal incident. Dfadden (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unfortunately, the media loves to hype up and place undue weight on negative news, and aviation incidents are a common target. News spikes surrounding negative aviation stories have been increasing over the last few decades and are to be expected even for the most mundane of incidents. By triggering negative emotional responses, this can distort our perceptions of how significant an incident really is - as was demonstrated by van der Meer et al. (2019) [27] Dfadden (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am pinged by Cunard as well. The action of FAA to release an airworthiness directive changing how the engine is inspected made the incident to be quite notable. The incident also grounded aircraft on multiple countries, showing that it's not just "another" accident but an accident that is treated more seriously. The article also mentioned that Boeing changed the design of the engine by strengthening its covers, another proof that this is not just "another accident". A routine accident won't spark an international grounding of aircraft and a redesign of the aircraft. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1996 South African Touring Car Championship[edit]

1996 South African Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested draftification. Article is completely unsourced and barely has any content. Also, context is insufficient and leaves a lot to be desired. Editor has created several of these articles, which have only been tagged as "unsourced". I suggest returning to draftspace so it can be improved there. No objection to deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 20:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify Article needs work (a lot of it) before it is ready for the mainspace, however the information included can be verified in a number of secondary sources, even if refs aren't currently included. And while I acknowledge its prematurely been moved to the mainspace, based on the date stamps this AfD was initiated within a few hours of the article's creation. There is a reasonable potential that it can be improved. For those reasons I'm unwilling to !vote delete at this stage. Dfadden (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Kavatshi Airlines Antonov An-26B crash[edit]

2005 Kavatshi Airlines Antonov An-26B crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Accident doesn't demonstrate needed notability for an article. Fails the general notability guideline, the event criteria, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and doesn't demonstrate any lasting effects. Whilst the event does have coverage (minimal), the majority of them are in french with all of them being short stories. I haven't been able to find any coverage post-2005 involving this accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep Yet again another Antonov accident that doesnt fail WP:NOTNEWS, an accident with 11 fatalities is not an everyday occurance. Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an event doesn't fail WP:NOTNEWS doesn't mean it automatically gets a keep. No lasting effects were demonstrated from the accident. It has been 18 years since the accident and the accident has not demonstrated any (long-term) impacts. The event does not have significant nor reliable coverage.
Per WP:EVENTCRIT:
  1. Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. Event does not fulfill this criteria.
  2. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below). No widespread impact or coverage in diverse sources with no analysis of the accident.
  3. Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event. Event has limited coverage.
  4. Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Nothing inherently notable about this accident even if tragic.
Post-2005, I haven't been able to find any coverage regarding this accident thus failing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
an accident like this is indefinetly going to fail the 10-year test that many deletion authors go by, no accident has continued coverage over 19 years. Lolzer3000 (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For sure no accident will have continued coverage for over 19 years but an accident should at least be mentioned/ talked about for at least a year especially for an accident with that many fatalities. All news sources are primary sources which means it is impossible to source reliable secondary sources. All news sources only state the circumstances of the accident without any analysis of the accident failing WP:INDEPTH.
The event fails the general notability guidelines as it has no significant coverage and no reliable secondary sources. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeable here, i can only find a singular source covering it 6 days later, linked below, there is an in depth summary in 2005 in aviation so the general deletion of the article itself wouldnt be a problem because the information is still pertained in the summary.
[28] (the mentioned link) Lolzer3000 (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notability issue needs more attention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian Rugby League Cup[edit]

Serbian Rugby League Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, fails notabilty Mn1548 (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 16. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 13:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Alternative merge and redirect to Serbian Rugby League. Mn1548 (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • My preference however is to delete, given the state of the article, and lack of information on the competition format, and lack of context of how it fits into the Serbian season. Mn1548 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Rugby league, and Serbia. Owen× ☎ 14:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some sources available in English, European Rugby League has match reports for the finals from 2014 to 2017 and 2021, also a preview of the 2021 final which gives a bit of background history. These could be enough to establish notability. The Serbian RL website (in Serbian) also has lists of winners and of finals, but some data is missing, and there is nothing about an international cup. Due to the lack of match details, such as team lists and scorers, the article could be reformatted as a simple wikitable based on what can be verified. EdwardUK (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou, that page looks alot nicer. 😊 Mn1548 (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • New opinion Thanks to EdwardUK I think there are sufficient sources to keep the article. Mn1548 (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Killi Luqman (2017)[edit]

Battle of Killi Luqman (2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG as well WP:NEVENT - not WP:LASTING —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwean cricket team in Ireland in 2024[edit]

Zimbabwean cricket team in Ireland in 2024 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, sources in article are passing mentions in routine sports news, nothing meeting WP:SIRS.

Source eval:

Comments Source
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 1. "Ireland to host South Africa in Abu Dhabi". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 2. ^ "ICC confirm Ireland's fixture list for next four years". Belfast Telegraph. 18 August 2022. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 3. ^ "Ireland to host South Africa in Abu Dhabi in September". CricTracker. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 4. ^ "T20 World Cup in focus as Ireland outline busy summer schedule". International Cricket Council. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 5. ^ "Fixtures released for 2024". Cricket Ireland. Retrieved 13 May 2024.

Draft has been disputed. It is very unlikely this match will generate WP:SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  04:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I am frankly baffled by the two "keep" recommendations below. Both from seasoned editors. But both of a type expressly discussed in WP:ATA. ("All test series have articles - and so this one should too" is a classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Nothing is inherently or automatically notable. Not least sports fixtures that haven't yet occurred. And "There may not be coverage now - but there definitely will be" is a WP:ONLYBECAUSEITHAPPENED argument. Where the community agrees that "Notability is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources have taken notice already". Not whether they could in the future....) Baffled..... Guliolopez (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm baffled by the noms statement: "It is very unlikely this match will generate WP:SIGCOV"; this perhaps illustrates they are not familiar with Test cricket, or the importance of the match, as it will certainly generate significant coverage. AA (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the nominator could have framed their own argument better (and perhaps said "it is very possible [SIGCOV won't be generated]"; Rather than the more definitive/predictive "it is very likely/unlikely [SIGCOV won't be generated]"). But the fact remains that AfD discussions should be based on the sources and evidences of notability that exist at the time of the discussion. Not those that might exist in the future. Or would have existed in the past had conditions been different. Personally I don't understand why, even if you fully believe that sources/evidences will arise in the future, you wouldn't see that as an argument to draftify/incubate. Until that actual SIGCOV actually exists... (Also, familiarity with test cricket [or expertise in any field] isn't a precondition to AfD discussions or a prerequisite to dispassionate evaluation of sources.) Guliolopez (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A series between two ICC full members who will play a Test match, the highest level of the international game. This match will receive coverage and WP:SIGCOV as it is the first Test match to be played in Northern Ireland (a historically notable moment) and only the second Test match played on the island of Ireland. AA (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Every Test cricket series, even a one-Test series like this, has an article. Sammyrice (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify It's likely that coverage will exist at the time of the test, but for now draftify as a case of WP:TOOSOON. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Clearly fails in WP:GNG, the event is not notable for a dedicated article. Svartner (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - Agree with AA that it is likely this will receive sufficient coverage to meet SIGCOV. But that is in the future. For now it doesn't, and draft space is specifically for incubating such articles. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Pattani bombing[edit]

2017 Pattani bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources are all from the time of the event. Need lasting coverage and impact to meet WP:EVENT. A search for sources yielded sources for a different bombing in Pattani in 2016. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Thailand. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article is well sourced and the incident has continued to be discussed both for itself and as part of the overall security situation in Thailand. A short documentary was made about one of the suspects. I've added links from 2018 and 2020. Article needs some cleanup especially the "attack" narrative that lacks inline citations. Oblivy (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Timeline of events related to the South Thailand insurgency#2017, where it is mentioned. If what Oblivy says is true, then I'd vote keep, but I can't actually find what is mentioned above, or verify that it has long standing significance. The added links are bordering on run of the mill and don't seem to have much commentary. Or commentary on the documentary. If that is provided I would change my vote to keep. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage can be found in the Al Jazeera, CNA, and International Business Times articles. I don't think run-of-the-mill applies to any of that.
The deletion rationale was about lasting coverage and impact. The event gets continuing discussion by security researchers like this[29]. It seems to have gotten extended discussion in Wheeler, Thailand's Southern Insurgency in 2017: Running in Place (2018, paywalled). The court case was reported as a standalone article in the Bangkok Post, a good indicator of lasting impact, as is the fact that a filmmaker decided to make a documentary about it. The article isn't about the documentary - it's cited to show that there was lasting coverage of the event via the documentary - and I don't think it's reasonable to require commentary on the documentary. Oblivy (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone wishing to vote on this should probably have a look at the substantially revised article. I've added cites, and have been through most or all of the ones that are in the article. Lack of inline citations in some places has been dealt with. I have made my case for sustained coverage and impact and these changes strengthen that argument. Oblivy (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Scottsdale mayoral election[edit]

2008 Scottsdale mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Slightly more extensive than 2012 Scottsdale mayoral election. Still probably falls under WP:MILL. Okmrman (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Scottsdale is large enough, being one of the 100 largest cities in the United States that its elections are almost certainly notable. I'm not sure how someone can argue the politics of a large city like this one aren't at all notable.
-Samoht27 (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a particularly notable election (no non-local coverage, so WP:MILL), and only sourced to election results - fails GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 00:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mangal[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Battle of Mangal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extreme reliance on WP:RAJ sources, no reliable/good secondary sources. Noorullah (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kashmir (1814)[edit]

Battle of Kashmir (1814) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is littered with unreliable sources and relies heavily on WP:Raj sources to promote ethnic heroism and the events do not indicate a victory for the Afghans. This page requires deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festivalfalcon873 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Three of the sources are WP:RAJ which can be removed as they are only passing by sources attributed by other secondary sources. Not sure what you're referring to as unreliable sources here, would be nice for you to identify, because historians like Hari Ram Gupta are more then WP:RS. Also pages 124-126 clearly show the expedition was a failure and an Afghan victory: [30]. Noorullah (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further adding from the source: "It took Ranjit Singh four years to overcome his defeat and disgrace suffered in the Kashmir expedition of 1814."[31] (page 128) Noorullah (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:
Only the sources from WP:RAJ mention any defeat occurring and are clearly required for the final result of this article but do not pass the standards of Wikipedia. Historians that you noted such as Hari Ram Gupta are specific on page 125 that , “Aghar Khan joined Ruhullah Khan. They spread the rumour that the Sikh army had been defeated.” There was no battle against Wazir Fateh Khan mentioned as noted in this article nor any defeat in battle against Wazir Fateh Khan. The article itself is littered with errors as it mentions this is the third campaign or invasion of Ranjit Singh. This is incorrect as there was no campaign in 1812 as noted by Hari Ram Gupta and in 1813 the campaign was a joint collaboration with Wazir Fateh Khan where the former was to give a tribute.
Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The expedition ended in failure, Hari Ram Gupta made this clear on page 126 [32] when he clearly identifies it as a Sikh defeat. The WP:RAJ sources can be removed as I said because they are only passing references while attributed by other secondary sources (such as Hari Ram Gupta). Also the article is being cleaned up, and thus can stay per WP:HEY. Noorullah (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The initial issue of the outcome of this so called battle is not being referenced correctly is still present & or the outcome is using  WP:RAJ source which doesn’t meet requirements of Wikipedia. Two WP:RAJsources are still there in the article in order to present a victory which are not reliable. Therefore it is factually incorrect to say it is passing by reference. The expedition ended in failure, but Gupta makes it clear that any battle taking place was just a rumor on pg 125 that , “Aghar Khan joined Ruhullah Khan. They spread the rumour that the Sikh army had been defeated”in book History Of The Sikhs Vol. V The Sikh Lion of Lahore and does not mention any battle taking place. The author G.S Chhabra you referenced on pg 115 does not mention any direct defeat or battle by Azim Khan either , neither has it been referenced that the losses were heavy. Any mention of any battle taking place in the article is unreliable , Captain Amrinder is not a historian but a politician is thus not a Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
So to point out that the article has significantly improved is inaccurate as the initial concern is not fixed and no improvements have been done to fix it. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:RAJ sources on the page as per your most recent comment. Gupta clearly states Ranjit Singh was defeated as mentioned above. Noorullah (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete found nothing in sources for specific "Battle of Kashmir". Only two scattered lines mention the first Kashmir expedition by Ranjit Singh. Clearly not much coverage, it could be merged in any of the parent articles but doesn't need its own standalone page. Based Kashmiri (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. One of those many Indian WP:SYNTH battle pages. RangersRus (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: There is plenty of coverage on the expedition. [33] [34] [35]
    Retitled to "Kashmir expedition (1814) so that it can also stay per WP:HEY. Noorullah (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Article has also been significantly expanded to constitute remaining under WP:HEY with numerous other sources also being added. Noorullah (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    pinging to @RangersRus and @Based Kashmiri per above. Noorullah (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Noorullah21 I'd not oppose moving it to the "Kashmir expedition" or "First Kashmir expedition" as per sources. However the issue of WP:SIGCOV is refraining me from striking my vote. Also the third source [36] doesn't appear to be reliable, as Shashikant Nishant Sharma is not a historian and the publisher is also questionable. The rest of the sources don't have significant coverage. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 10:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please do not move page while AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet[edit]

Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poor attempt of the author to keep Pala Tibetan War from AFD. Same content with different title. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War.Imperial[AFCND] 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Devapāla came into conflict with Tibet, there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Raja Dharma- pala to submit. Devapāla also may have come to clash with them and defeated them.[1]
  • Devapāla might have come into conflict with Tibet; there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-Srong-Ida-Btsan and his son Mu-teg-Btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharma- pāla to submit. Devapāla also may have clashed with them and defeated them[2]
Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop listing down this big {{tq}} here. It was already a mess at the earlier discussion. Comment down if you've any possible arguments that could potentially save the article. I am pretty sure you haven't read what WP: NOTABILITY, and this reflects everywhere in the AFD. Long paragraphs are not the factor that determines whether it passes GNG or not. And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here. Imperial[AFCND] 19:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This event is notable and has received significant coverage in Reliable Sources (WP:RS) and it passes WP:GNG & WP:SIGCOV and this isn't WP:OR since reliable sources mention the event as Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet.
Also what do you mean by "And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here."?? I gave you two reliable sources which mentions the event in a similar way. Based Kashmiri (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Based Kashmiri, what you've done is exposed plagiarism. They mention the event in a similar way because one source plagiarized the other, not because this is a conventional way to write about this. -- asilvering (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per the WP:DEL-REASON guideline, there is no reason to delete this article and I have provided multiple reliable sources about this event here in the replies below. Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have evidence that one of these sources plagiarised the other? Cortador (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sinha, Bindeshwari Prasad (1974). Comprehensive History Of Bihar Vol.1; Pt.2.
  2. ^ Diwakar, R. R. (1958). Bihar through the ages.
  • Delete. This is obviously a recreation of the previously deleted article. It does have a better title, in that it is no longer claiming there was a "Pala Tibetan War", but this is the same issue. We can write about this hypothetical conflict (one of the sources you list above even says "might have"!) on Devapala (Pala dynasty). If eventually we find sources to justify a separate article, we can spin out out from Devapala (Pala dynasty). But we did not find those sources in the last AfD, so I doubt we will find them here either. While I'm looking at that article, I note that we also have the sentences There is nothing impossible as the Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharmapāla to submit. Therefore, Devapāla must have also clashed with and defeated the Tibetan kings. Not only does this not follow the sources (our article says "must have", while neither source says so), it is obviously plagiarism. -- asilvering (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a recreation of the previously deleted article, also this article doesn't have any issues like that article, if you think there is any issue in this article then list them down.
    The previous article had issues with the "Dharmapāla's Conflict with Tibetans" section and the "Conflict with Nepal" section, which is excluded from this article. This article focuses on the conflict between Devapala and Tibet, with reliable sources mentioning the event as "Devapala's Conflict with Tibet." The main problem with the previous article was the uncited title, but this article provides reliable sources to support its claim.Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean "it literally contains the exact same words as the previous article". If that were the case, it could just be nominated for speedy deletion. I mean "it is in effect the same article with the same problems", which is true. At least one of the two reliable sources you brought up above appears to be plagiarized, so not only is this not two separate sources with in-depth coverage, it's only one source with very brief coverage. This can easily be written about on Devapala (Pala dynasty) if necessary. (But I'd advise against plagiarising a plagiarised source to do so.) -- asilvering (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article cannot be deleted for the reasons you've provided, as per the Wikipedia deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON.
    Additionally, here are some additional reliable sources about this event:
    Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These sources do not support your case. -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then explain how? Also you still haven't given any reasons to delete this article from as per the Wikipedia's deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON. Based Kashmiri (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason for deletion is simple, and it is the most common deletion reason that exists: this does not pass WP:GNG. We need multiple reliable, secondary sources that discuss the topic in depth. -- asilvering (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete per asilvering and Imperial Okmrman (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. Owen× ☎ 05:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They do not have any valid reason to delete the article, Please provide a valid reason from WP:DEL-REASON.Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Okmrman And I just checked your User contributions and noticed you have voted for deletion for every single AFD you had discovered EVERY MINUTE, without even reading anything.Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both @Asilvering and @ImperialAficionado haven't provided any valid reason to delete this article from WP:DEL-REASON, how can you agree with them? Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , this is simply not notable and has wrongly been re-created as an article with a different name. If this goes on a topic ban would be in order for the editor. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas[edit]

Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A copy of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala invasion of Kannauj. Same content, fails WP:GNG, poorly found in reliable sources. Part of Tripartite struggle, can be added to it. Imperial[AFCND] 14:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No results for "Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas" in Google scholar, JSTOR [37], and literally zero result from Google keyword searching. Hardly found few sources (including what present in the article), that barely mentioned no more than two or three lines about the so called "Campaign". And passes GNG? See WP:SIGCOV. Imperial[AFCND] 15:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is very notable and has been given significant coverage in reliable sources therefore it passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.
  • The Gurjara lords against whom Devapāla fought must have been the Pratīhāra rulers. It is possible that Nagabhața II tried to assert his power after the death of Dharmapāla and if, as some scholars believe, he transferred his capital to Kanauj, he must have achieved some success. But Devapāla soon re-established the Pala supremacy, and it was possibly after his (Devapāla's) successful campaign against the Pratihāras that he advanced to the Hūņa and Kamboja princi- palities. Nāgabhața's son, Ramabhadra, probably also had his kingdom invaded by Devapāla. The next Pratihāra king Bhoja also, in spite of his initial success, suffered reverses at the hands of Devapāla, and could not restore the fortunes of his family so long as the Pala emperor was alive. Thus Devapāla successfully fought with three generations of Pratihāra rulers, and maintained the Pala supremacy in Northern India.[1][2]
Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It is notable because I said so." Industrial Insect (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore WP:RS which has significant coverage about the topic of the article and just say "It is notable because I said so.", wow.
The article is notable for several reasons. First, it has significant coverage from WP:RS. Second, It passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I hope this helps clarify why the article meets the notability criteria. Based Kashmiri (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article appears to be successfully meet the criteria set forth in Wikipedia's Notability guidelines and the issues raised in the nomination do not appear to be evident within the article itself.
Khotanese26 (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two mundane keep votes so far, one from the creator and another from a very new user (?!). For my money, I'd say to delete, as the sources presented in the article, and with my own lookups, led to nothing of substantial use that can justify a rigid keep. X (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Majumdar, R. C. (2009). History and Culture of the Indian People, Volume 04, The Age Of Imperial Kanauj. Public Resource. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. pp. 50–51.
  2. ^ Others, Muzaffar H. Syed & (2022-02-20). History of Indian Nation : Ancient India. K.K. Publications. p. 287.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Scottsdale mayoral election[edit]

2012 Scottsdale mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With the deletion of 2018 Garland mayoral special election, I think some of the other articles part of WP:CLUSTERFUCK should be reassessed. Okmrman (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Arizona. Owen× ☎ 23:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notwithstanding a deletion rationale I don't entirely understand, the article is just a simple re-telling of the election result in a medium-sized American city. I could see it maybe being kept if it were somehow exceptional in any way, including regional coverage, but that's not what's here. SportingFlyer T·C 04:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Scottsdale is large enough, being one of the 100 largest cities in the United States that its elections are almost certainly notable. I'm not sure how someone can argue the politics of a large city like this one aren't at all notable. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For failing WP:GNG? There's only one source, the election results, and mayoral elections are classic WP:MILL fare. SportingFlyer T·C 00:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Having one source is an issue that could easily be fixed by seeking out additional citations, that's not what AFD is for. This isn't WP:MILL either, its a large enough city that it's elections ARE important. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then find a source other than a local paper which reports on it. SportingFlyer T·C 18:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL. No reason to not confine this to the biography about the mayor. Geschichte (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bahawalnagar incident[edit]

Bahawalnagar incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Should be either merged or deleted. Event doesn't require its own article. Wikibear47 (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd argue it's pretty significant Claire 26 (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Three different Redirect/Merge target articles have been mentioned, we have to get that down to one suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, This is a WP:NOTNEWS event that received a brief wave of coverage with no fatalities.

Such events occur commonly; for example, see similar incidents [38], [39]. War Wounded (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leinster Chess Leagues[edit]

Leinster Chess Leagues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Leinster Chess Leagues article, and the articles I am combining in my nomination below that represent to tropies of the different leagues for the main article, fail the test of independent notability for each article and further, these articles are large WP:NOTDATABASE violations and full of WP:OR. This content would be better suited on the website of the organization and not Wikipedia as the pages often boil down to league rules and not secondary independent coverage.

Also nomintated for deletion:

Armstrong Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Heidenfeld Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ennis Shield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
O'Hanlon Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BEA Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
O'Sullivan Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Branagan Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thanks, microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 15:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Games, Organizations, and Ireland. Skynxnex (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have written a reply in the Talk page attached to this article. If you cannot read that reply I will copy it here. With thanks, sincerely JohnPDLoughran (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. You should copy your reply here yourself. A closing admin may not (and is not necessarily expected to) search for comments placed outside the AfD discussion thread. You could consider leaving out the parts, of your comment, which are unrelated to the concerns raised in the AfD nomination. Guliolopez (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JohnPDLoughran are you associated at all with the Leinster Chess Leagues or any of their associated divisions? microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 20:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Marcus, copying my reply here as directed. Please excuse me as I am new to editing Wikipedia, and was confused as to where to post it. Some of the help files are confusing and mention the Talk area as a way to respond. Can I ask, should I prepend this reply with something like {{MicrobiologyMarcus}}? Here is my edited reply and answer to your query.
    I was shocked to see that you were recommending the deletion of a large number of articles relating to chess in Ireland. These are valuable resources not only of current but also of historic interest, albeit to a small population of chess players. The Leinster Chess Leagues page links the different articles including one on the Armstrong Cup which I read with interest. It started in 1888 and may be one of the oldest such competitions in the world. The information in these articles is supported by two independent Irish chess history websites which are not affiliated to the Leinster Leagues. They quote many independent sources of information including newspaper articles, one written in 1888. If you delete these articles you will delete a valuable resource. Because the chess playing population is so small it is difficult to source more independent references, although I am continuing to work on this with collaborators, and I would be glad of advice on ways to improve this. Needless to say I am new to publishing in an encyclopaedia. One of the articles which first spurred my interest was the article on Chess in the Encyclopedia Brittanica.
    Regarding my links with the Leinster Chess Union. Firstly I am a player on a team that competes in the leagues, and currently the chairperson of Skerries Chess Club. I have no official membership of the LCU. Our club pays them a small fee to participate in the leagues each year. While it is true that Skerries did win the BEA Cup one year, it was before I was a member, so I had no personal interest in writing that first article. I added the article on the Leinster Chess Leagues after that simply to link various articles on each league together, and to avoid duplication of material within each league article. The reason I wrote the article on the BEA Cup was that we were given it by accident. Because it was a cup which had been donated in 1972 and passed from club to club since then and miraculously survived I felt it was worthy of note, so I did quite a lot of research, still ongoing, to discover the winners each season and record them in the article as well as taking a picture of this, in my opinion, priceless artefact, before getting its base repaired. I am of course open to suggestions as to how to improve the articles (BEA Cup or Leagues article) but I would be deeply disappointed to see these articles disappear, even moreso if their deletion was to have a knock on effect of causing the deletion of other valuable articles, which I had no hand in writing, on the other Leauges: Armstrong etc. With thanks, yours sincerely JohnPDLoughran (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The two independent sources in the article are WP:BLOGS and are therefore not reliable. I was able to find a few brief news items in the Irish Independent: [40] [41], but it doesn't seem like quite enough on its own to demonstrate notability for the leagues, much less for the individual divisions. I would either redirect everything to Irish Chess Union#Team competitions or otherwise redirect/merge the divisions into the Leinster Chess Leagues article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just saw that the blogs cited old newspapers. If these sources can be confirmed, the individual divisions might very well be notable. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Given that there are several titles here to consider, my own recommendation is to:
  • Delete O'Sullivan Cup. This article, on the seventh (childrens?) tier of an amateur/regional chess competition, doesn't have sufficient reliable sources to even support its text. Not to mind a claim to notability. Under any applicable criteria. (The article itself states that there aren't sufficient sources to establish what happened in relatively recent runnings of the competition. I mean, we're relying on this random picture to "guess" that the people (children?) pictured might have come third in 2015? Seriously?)
  • Delete BEA Cup. This article, on the fifth tier of an amateur/regional chess competition, doesn't have sufficient sources to support its text. The author (within the text) states that there aren't even sources to establish who won the competition on any given year. That we reliant upon "reading the engravings off a cup" (and using that as a basis for content AND justification a stand-alone article) is a very clear indication that WP:SIGCOV is not met. By a significant margin. The thing (the cup) cannot be a reference for itself or represent coverage of itself. It's just backwards and bizarre.
  • Redirect Armstrong Cup, Heidenfeld Trophy and Ennis Shield. And maybe O'Hanlon Cup. Either to Leinster Chess Leagues (if that title is kept). Or to Irish_Chess_Union#Team competitions (if not). Similar to the above, I have significant concerns with the reliability and accuracy of the sources and content in those articles. And do not see any justification for the project being a WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTWEBHOST repo for previous winners of these amateur regional chess competitions. However, there is some limited coverage - to just about justify a redirect as an WP:ATD. And to mention the competitions WP:WITHIN the target article. For example, the Armstrong Cup is mentioned (almost always in passing and always/only in regional newspapers), in places like this, this and this. Which could justify covering it in either the Leinster Chess Leagues or Irish Chess Union articles. And perhaps leaving a redirect.
  • Weak keep Leinster Chess Leagues (or redirect to Irish_Chess_Union#Competitions). While I'm not swayed by the creator's arguments ("I'm shocked", "It's useful", "supported by 2x special interest websites"), there is a small smattering of limited coverage in some local sources. Like this, this and this or this. If kept, as a standalone title, the article needs significant work however.
My 2x cents anyway. FWIW. Guliolopez (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source assessment with many, many thanks to @Guliolopez for collecting a list of sources. I want to preface this by saying I am trying to be fair and impartial and stave off concerns that I am attacking a particular chess league or its members and, should the evidence arrive that any or all of the articles I nominated are WP:Notable, I will gladly change my vote. Please let me know, I would be happy to add to the following table. As it stands, I still believe the articles are a violation of WP:NOTDATABASE and would need to be reworked, but I am a big believer in WP:THREE. With that said:
Source assessment table: prepared by User:MicrobiologyMarcus
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"Garden squad win promotion". Irish Independent. 4 April 2012. Yes Yes No coverage about a team winning a match to advance to the Ennis Shield, a part of Leinster Chess league, does not surpass trivial coverage of either of those subjects. ✘ No
"Chess Club". Irish Independent. 11 March 2009. Yes Yes ? I would evaluate this as significant coverage of the tournament/event, I don't now if I would consider that coverage to be of the league itself, or if coverage of this extent would be inherited to the organization, such to meet WP:NCORP ? Unknown
"Chess club wins promotion to division two after dramatic final round of matches". Irish Independent. 14 June 2023. Yes Yes No as the first, coverage is of a club with trivial mentions of Leinster Chess League and Ennis Shield ✘ No
"It's checkmate for local club at Leinster Finals". Irish Independent. 11 May 2011. Yes Yes ? I would say this may meet SIGCOV of Leinster Chess Championships, which again is not the leagues. The extend of the coverage of that in the article is The cup was first competed for as far back as 1912 and has been won by a distinguished list of top Irish chess players over the years. The rest is, as before, coverage of the tournament/event with the same inheritance concerns. ? Unknown
"Chess club move into history books". Irish Independent. 24 April 2003. Yes Yes No subject of the coverage is again a club with passing trivial mentions of Heidenfeld trophy and Armstrong Cup ✘ No
"Chess mates descend on Bray". Irish Independent. 17 March 2010. Yes Yes ? strongest argument for SIGCOV of the tournamentevent articles in my opinion, coverage of the 203-word article is split equally among the event and then between the season structure of Leinster Chess Union League ("The league begins in September every year and lasts until March.") and the history of Armstrong Cup ("...new owners of the infamous Armstrong Cup, which was first presented in the 1888-1889 league, therefore making it one of the oldest sporting competitions in Ireland.") ? Unknown
"Chess club has come a long way over 25 years". Irish Independent. 3 August 2005. No interview with a member club member Yes ? this is definetly SIGCOV of a club with probably acceptable mentions of Leinster Leagues ("...in the Leinster Leagues that run from September to March each year.") ✘ No
"Chess Club finally secure Ennis Shield". Irish Independent. 8 May 2002. Yes Yes No coverage of a club with mentions of the Ennis Shield, same inheritance concerns with all tournament/event articles, but even weaker argument here as the article itself isn't about the event. ✘ No
"Your weekly sporting club notes". Irish Independent. 3 October 2006. Yes Yes No trivial coverage of the tournament/event Heidenfeld Shield mentioned, nothing in depth about subject or organization ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I would gladly add to the above table if sources are provided, or if you believe my assessment of any of the above are wrong, I would be happy to discuss. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 17:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given all the sources and analysis done to date in the table, I feel the like strongest !keep argument would be to have a Leinster Chess Union League as that seems to be the most frequently used identifier of the WP:NCORP, but I think this would come down to how strong the passing mentions are of the leagues in the event coverage above, and whether the coverage of the event is WP:Inherited to the Chess Union League itself or not, and whether the coverage satisfies as significant; I'm leaning no, based on my reading of WP:SIGCOV:

Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

but I would understand where this might be interpreted differently here. Given that, then all the other articles could be redirects (see WP:CHEAP) and the ones which are sourced by only event coverage could have their own sections on the main article. I think that would be the strongest possible argument for keep, however, given the current references. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 16:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A chess blog website claims that newspapers such as the Irish Times and Irish Press have written some sort of coverage about the various leagues decades ago, e.g. for the Branagan Cup. I have no idea what this coverage looks like, whether it's also trivial, etc. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, interesting. With respect to WP:OFFLINE, I can't help but feel as if these were present and properly cited in the article, they would be suitable, but to mass copy and paste them into an article from their collection on the organisation's website feels less-than-inline with WP:V. Given the context of the page, I would suspect someone has gone back (probably very labouriously) to compile the records and statistics of the page, but I doubt they are significant coverage of the organisation itself in such a manner to establish WP:NCORP. They would, however, be suitable to cite the (probably WP:NOTDATABASE violation that is the laundry) list of past winners, in such a manner to satisfy WP:OR concerns—that is, the ones that cite news articles and not tweets. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 20:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep/merge my sense of the source analysis is we have enough coverage for the topic to have an article. I'm not sure which article title is best. We do have reason to believe there are offline sources too. For now I'd say keep Leinster Chess Leagues and merge the rest (a couple sentences at most for all but the Armstrong Cup) into it. I'm happy to take an expansive view of this article having coverage count that covers those various topics... Hobit (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep main page, merge and redirect cups, stubify to verifiable facts: As the nom, I think I'm the only hold questioning notability. For consensus, I would concede notability for the main league given the breadth of coverage, in spite of my SIGCOV concerns above. I think altogether these pages should be merged to the main article, the cup pages redirected, and the articles signifcantly reduced to simply contain facts and not the long NOTDATABASE violations. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 16:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Events&oldid=1225530248"